Thomas W.
Hiltachk
The road to achieving government reform is always difficult. History has proven that those in power rarely choose to reform themselves. It is that very historical fact that led to the progressive reforms enacted in California in the early 20th century, which gave the people the power to reform their own government via the initiative process.
The recent court decision to remove the charter reform initiative from the June ballot is an assault on the people of Sacramento’s legal and democratic right to reform their city government and hold it more accountable. In this ruling, Judge Loren McMaster failed to protect the people against the forces of entrenched bureaucracy and special interests who will stop at nothing to prevent reform.
Sacramentans are fed up with the current gridlock and waste at City Hall, so much so that more than 50,000 residents signed a petition to support the placement of the Charter Reform Initiative on the ballot. This is more than enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot. Residents are tired of the antiquated council-manager form of government that worked back in 1921 when it was adopted, but has since rendered our City Hall unresponsive to the needs of a growing city.
An appeal will be filed swiftly and confidently in the 3rd District Court of Appeal, asking the court to grant the people of Sacramento their right to decide the direction of their city.
In a case that has profound implications, our California Supreme Court has spoken directly on this issue. Term limits for state legislators and statewide officers were enacted by initiative over the strenuous objections of those in power at the time.
After Proposition 140 was approved by the people, the Legislature asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the initiative on the grounds that it was a “revision” to our state constitution instead of an “amendment” and thus could not be enacted by the people via the initiative process. This is the same argument used by the opponents of the charter reform initiative.
The Supreme Court sided with the will of the people and upheld the democratic process. In the term limits case, the Supreme Court made the important point that is equally applicable to the charter reform case: The court stated that its role was to protect the interest of the people, not the government.
By removing the charter reform initiative from the ballot, thus preventing the voters from having any voice, the superior court did not uphold its solemn duty to protect the people’s power to determine the future of Sacramento.
In Sacramento, our City Council has made it perfectly clear it has no interest in reforming city government and is quite happy with the status quo. The council was previously urged to place its own reform proposal on the ballot to compete with the charter reform initiative, and it refused. Last summer, the Charter Review Commission, created by the City Council, met to consider government reform ideas; it proposed nothing. The only road to reform in Sacramento is to let the people of Sacramento vote on the charter reform initiative.
The fact is that the opponents are simply wrong about the purpose, intent and effect of the charter reform initiative. Sacramento is not the same city it was more than 80 years ago when the current council-manager form of government was enacted.
Times are different and cities evolve. McMaster’s decision was merely a bump in the road. I am confident that the appellate court will uphold the will and rights of the citizens who put the initiative on the ballot. Voters of Sacramento will be allowed to speak. The voice of reform is too loud to ignore.
